Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 4, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci Reappearance 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement 2) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck 3) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck 4) #09-564 Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs 20 Elm Hill Drive Construct a 1 �/z-story side addition; a one story front addition; and a new front portico 5) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence 6) Approval of July 7, 2009 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 1 STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Michal Nowak, Acting Village Engineer Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Jennifer L. Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel Tara Reillo, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the August 4, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci Reappearance 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement Mr. Don Moscato stated that there was a technical issue with the application and referred to counsel. Ms. Jennifer Reinke, Esq. noted that it was verified by the Village that the applicant failed to post the required public notice sign. Therefore, no vote can be taken by the Zoning Board this evening. Mr. Don Moscato asked Mr. Michael Tucci's counsel if he was aware of this. Mr. Demetrios Adamis, Esq. stated that he was not aware of it until this evening and his client was out of town. Mr. Adamis asked that this be adjourned until next months meeting and he will see to it that the sign gets up by the next meeting. Mr. Moscato asked legal counsel if there was a problem with the adjournment in terms of timing. Ms. Reinke said there would be no problem. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the September 1, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Moscato called for item #2 on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 2 2) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck Mr. John Michaels the homeowner of 51 Mohegan Lane, Rye Brook addressed the Board. He was there to have his existing deck legalized. He had a variance for the original deck which had to be repaired. The deck was repaired to the same footprint and he needs a new variance. Mr. Michaels doesn't quite understand why but he is here to get it. Mr. Don Moscato notes there is an issue with respect to the information we requested be sent to the Zoning Board at our last meeting when it was adjourned. The request was for the architect to certify the condition of the existing deck. Mr. Moscato stated that what the board received was a letter submitted by architect Mr. Peter Klein which does not address the request regarding the current structural condition of the deck. Mr. Moscato noted that a great deal of discussion took place regarding what condition the deck was in and how that could influence the decision of the Board. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that he should provide us with the current condition. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Michaels if he thought he could contact Mr. Klein and communicate that exact information that we are interested in the condition of deck from a certified professional and the structural integrity. Mr. Moscato stated that he would like Mr. Klein to visit the location and certify the condition of the deck. Mr. Michaels stated that Mr. Klein did that. He has been there and he did look at it. Mr. Moscato said that evidently Mr. Klein did not feel it was worth mentioning the current condition, and that Mr. Michaels should please take that up with Mr. Klein and then we will be able to take it up at the September meeting. Ms. Jennifer Reinke, Esq., made the Board aware that the applicant had not submitted the affidavit regarding the public notice sign and advised the applicant to submit the affidavit regarding public notification before the next meeting. Ms. Reinke and Mr. Michaels entered into a discussion regarding the public notice requirements. Mr. Michaels thanked the board. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the September 1, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Moscato called for item #3: Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 3 3) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck Mr. Bill Russillo of 225 King Street, the applicant for his mother's home addressed the Board. Mr. Russillo noted that the side setbacks, the rear setback and the lot coverage require a variance. He would like the deck to be the same size as the patio that is already there. There is an existing raised patio on the back of the house. He wants the deck to just be on top of it and follow that existing outline which is non-conforming since it was built back in 1930. The impervious surface coverage is proposed to be slightly larger than required by code because the driveway is very large. Mr. Moscato noted that the application indicated that there was hip surgery done for Mr. Russillo's mother and asked Mr. Russillo to explain the logistics of entry into the front and rear of the house currently. Mr. Russillo stated that the front has three steps and in the back there are three steps as it exists now. Mr. Moscato asked what the final would be if the deck was constructed in the rear and Mr. Russillo responded that it would be level, there would be no step out onto the deck. Mr. Moscato said so there would be no need to park the car and walk around to which Mr. Russillo said no. Mr. Moscato asked if that is the primary justification for the application. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board. Ms. Michele Fredman asked if there are steps going up to the current patio and Mr. Russillo responded yes. Ms. Fredman then asked how the deck on top of the current patio is going to be level. Mr. Russillo noted it would be level with the house and that there are steps from the driveway leading to the current patio and from the patio into the house. Ms. Fredman asked if the patio is below the level of the house and Mr. Russillo stated that yes, you step down from the house onto the patio. At this point Ms. Fredman and Mr. Russillo entered into a discussion about the need for the deck. Mr. Russillo explained that his mother is unable to climb stairs and the deck would allow her freedom to get outside easily. Ms. Fredman asked if there was an accessory building on the property to which Mr. Russillo responded no. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board. Mr. Crescenzi asked if Mr. Russillo could give some thought to reducing, since there are five variances that you are requesting to reducing the amount. For example on the deck coverage you are asking for 8% and permitted is 3 1/2 %. Mr. Russillo said the problem being the patio that is there is an L shape and he just wants to mimic that L shape. Without that he would have a deck stepping onto a patio and it wouldn't look right without following the existing footprint of the patio. Mr. Moscato asked how the patio was used. Mr. Russillo responded for lawn furniture, bar-b-que grill and that type of thing. Mr. Moscato noted if you have a deck more likely you are going to be using that for recreational purposes so Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 4 the size of the patio is really going to be a non-issue after the deck is built. Mr. Russillo responded yes. Mr. Moscato noted that the existing footprint of the patio is irrelevant. From an aesthetic point of view you are trying to say that you want to come out to the line but if that line were reduced the amount of impervious coverage is reduced theoretically because you are replacing concrete with wood but you don't have to be limited by that restriction. In fact the four feet variance is predicated on your desire to push that deck out to twelve feet. If the deck were eight feet you wouldn't have an issue and need a variance. Mr. Russillo noted that it would be very small and if you put a table on an eight foot deck you won't be walking around it and that's the problem. Mr. Crescenzi noted that he is asking us to double the variance and go from 3 1/2 percent to 8 and that is a substantial increase. Mr. Moscato said there are two major variance requests as I see it and three less substantial requests. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Izzo if there is an issue with respect to drainage and size of decks. Mr. Izzo said the code is going to require a storm water management plan for anything over 400 square feet so this is going to require a storm water management plan. Ms. Fredman asked if the deck is going to use the patio as footings. Mr. Russillo responded no that there were going to be new footings. Ms. Fredman asked if they were going to be beyond the edge of the patio. Mr. Russillo responded yes. Ms. Fredman said she was accustomed to sitting on The Planning Board where they had site visits so that this was very hard to visualize from what has come out this evening. Ms. Reinke noted that the Board has the option of doing a site visit as part of a variance application, usually it's arranged with the applicant before hand. Mr. Moscato noted that it appears in reviewing it that the first two variances are in my single opinion are not that substantial, it's variances 3 through 5 that are a concern. We've talked about the impervious coverage. One way to trade off impervious coverage when you want to add more impervious coverage is to reduce existing impervious coverage, so you look for places on your property, driveway, turnaround area, existing patios to trade off new for old. That is one way to reduce substantial variance with respect to impervious coverage. The second one is with respect to deck coverage. The size of the deck being 578 square feet is large. I think anyone looking at that would say that's a very large deck. It's something that might be nice to have but is not necessarily complying with the smallest possible variance that would satisfy the tradeoffs involved, Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 5 so one way to reduce the substantial variance is to knock off some of that area and that would be a tradeoff on the part of the applicant as to what parts of it can go. If you are concerned about putting a table in there, there are tables which can be used to fit into an existing area. The fifth variance is the rear yard set back. Cut out four feet of the deck and there is no need for a variance. It appears that there are ways to reduce the need for the 3 major variances as I see it. It seems that the variance for the deck is rather substantial and that could be reduced. Mr. Moscato asked if any other board members had any questions. Mr. Crescenzi noted that there are ways you could look at this to reduce the deck size which then in turn might reduce the setback variance, so you might be helping yourself by taking another month to look at this and come back to the Board and present your findings on this and say that I did research this and yes I can do this or I can't do that. But you have to come back and ask for differences or changes that you would want to make or we vote on this tonight. Mr. Russillo asked what the rear setback was. Mr. Moscato said thirty feet and you are asking for a four foot relief. Mr. Russillo noted that the he believes the existing patio is already two feet from the property line. Mr. Crescenzi noted that you have to leave the patio alone because what you are asking for is a deck and that triggers certain things that come into play. Also by State Law we are required to issue, if we give a variance, it has to be the smallest variance that we would grant and allow you to accomplish some of your goals. You may not be able to accomplish all of them. What I would suggest and I don't mean to speak for the Board, is to go back and look at this and see if you can reduce some of this and then come back to us and give us your findings on that review. Mr. Russillo asked who he could bring out there. Mr. Izzo told Mr. Russillo that he could schedule the site visit with any Board member through the Building Department. Mr. Moscato and Ms. Fredman volunteered to make the site visit. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the September 1, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Moscato called for item #4: Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 6 4) #09-564 Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs 20 Elm Hill Drive Construct a 1 1/2-story side addition; a one story front addition; and a new front portico Mr. John Scarlato Jr. Architect appearing for the applicant addressed the Board. What we are trying to do is work with the existing master bedroom and not touch the kids bedrooms and not put a whole suite in. We are trying to accomplish more closet space and a bigger bathroom which is in this addition to the left of the house, it is set back from the existing house two feet. It is 12' by 17' 6". The livable space of this addition is only 210 square feet. The addition is only the second floor, a closet, the bathroom and storage area off the garage, which is the bottom part and counts in our FAR because the garage level is at grade so therefore it counts in our FAR number. We are also adding a slight piece off the foyer for a hall closet in this piece with the new portico which adds very little square footage to the house. Those are the only two additions we are doing to the house. We are here for three variances. The first variance is a total of two side yard set backs. If you look at the site plan the house fits into the forty feet. The part that is off by one foot is the rear deck off the kitchen. The one foot side yard set back is only the deck and has nothing to do with the structure of the house. The existing house is within the set back. The property line on this house if you notice is pie shaped, the property lines aren't even with the house so as you get to the road you have more space, as you get to the back of the house the property line on both sides gets tighter and the deck is on the back of the house so that is really where the issue is. The addition on the house will conform. It's really just the deck that needs the one foot side yard set back. I capped the addition at twelve feet which was my minimum to get it to actually work. The other issue we have is our maximum gross floor area. We are allowed a 3,126 square foot house. The house with the addition is going to come to 3,443, but you have to realize that the 210 square foot addition to the master bedroom is multiplied by 2 because of the 210' storage area off the garage which counts in our FAR. They have no basement so you really don't have a lot of storage space in this house. By adding off the master bedroom, it's definitely a smaller addition and less mass, and less expense then adding a whole suite off the dining room area of the house which would have been the second option of adding over where the entry way is which on some of these houses people have done. But we would have added a lot more square footage to the house, here we are just adding really the bathroom and the closet space. The last issue with the impervious coverage is we are over by 207 square feet. The impervious coverage issue with this house is the rear yard with the in- ground pool and the patio around the pool. The front yard is actually under the impervious coverage but our real issue is the pool which is 450 square feet and then the patio around the pool and it really doesn't make sense to start chopping out for 200 square feet the patio around the pool. Because if you have a pool you really want the patio and it's already there. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 7 Mr. Moscato asked if any other board members had questions for Mr. Scarlato. Mr. Moscato asked if there was a water issue with respect to the neighbors. It is a relatively flat area, but he was wondering if there is a concern for water runoff on neighboring properties. Mr. Scarlato responded that there shouldn't be. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Sachs if he was aware of any water issue, to which Mr. Sachs responded no. Mr. Scarlato noted that they have to do a storm water plan for the building department. Mr. Izzo noted that it was less than 400 square feet. Mr. Moscato asked if they had consulted the neighbors. Mr. Scarlato noted they did and have a letter from the people on the side who said they saw it and they have no problem with it. Mr. Scarlato submitted the letter to the board. Mr. Moscato said that his concerns were with water related issues on the impervious coverage side. Your GFA is essentially 10% over what is allowed, 314 square feet, and the single side yard set back doesn't bother him at all, as a minor issue. It's a matter of judgement on the part of the Board and how they feel about the impervious and the GFA. Mr. Berger stated that he had no objections. Mr. Rednick stated that he had no objections either, that he drove through the neighborhood and it does not look like this house would be out of place with that size GFA. Mr. Moscato noted there is the one house that will be expanded out and this will be the second on Elm Hill that appears and probably there will be others down the road but most are traditional split levels, except one, which stands out. Mr. Crescenzi stated that he had no problem. Mr. Moscato questioned if Ms. Fredman had any objections. Ms. Fredman asked Mr. Scarlato that if they were to ask him to reduce the variances that he was requesting, what would he do. Starting with the impervious part first. Mr. Scarlato said that he really couldn't reduce the size of the addition. Mr. Scarlato said the only one we could probably do anything with is the impervious is to try to remove something else. Mr. Moscato said we know you don't want to touch the patio around the pool and Mr. Scarlato said that would be the only way is to touch the patio because you can't really shorten the driveway. Ms. Fredman stated that this Village is very wet and everything that we can do to keep from adding impervious surfaces is a good thing, so that is my question, what would you do. Mr. Izzo brought up the idea of doing a storm water management plan. Mr. Scarlato stated that we could implement the coltech units for the impervious that we are adding so that instead of not doing it for under 400 we would do it anyway. We would agree to do the drywells. Ms. Fredman stated that's a great answer. Mr. Moscato asked Ms. Reinke how they would handle something like that. Ms. Reinke replied that you could make that a condition of the variance, that the applicant can submit a storm water management plan to the building department. Mr. Moscato asked Ms. Reinke to please write out that one condition. Mr. Moscato asked if there were any more questions of the applicant. There being none. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 8 There were no other members of the public wishing to address the Board, therefore, Mr. Moscato closed the public portion of the meeting and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato read the resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 9 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs for a total of 2 side yards setback of 1 foot variance; gross floor area variance of 314 square feet; and impervious coverage variance of 207 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of 1 1/2-story side addition; a one story front addition; and a new front portico, on property located at 20 Elm Hill Drive in an R-12 District on the west side of Elm Hill Drive, 215 feet from the intersection of Bonwit Road and Elm Hill Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.50, Block: 1, Lot: 57; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 4, 2009, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required. WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) No undesirable change in character of neighborhood. 2) Variance is not substantial. 3) No adverse impact on environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 4) Variance is self-created. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 10 NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted subject to the following conditions prior to the issuance of a building permit a storm water management plan adequate to treat the adverse effects of the additional impervious surfaces shall be submitted to, and approved by the building department and the department of engineering. Dated: August 4, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variances were granted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 12 5) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Mr. Brian Berk property owner addressed Board. Mr. Berk is requesting a variance on two set backs and also for a fence height. There was a survey that was submitted and we notified all the neighbors pursuant to the code and he will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Moscato noted that the reason for appeal noted on the application, says need a permit for sports court, spa and fence to legalize. Mr. Berk said that everything is already built. Mr. Izzo noted that on November 14, 2008 the Building Department issued a Notice of Violation and Order to Remedy to the applicant at 11 Edgewood Drive for constructing the impervious coverage sports court without a permit and use without a CO. Mr. Moscato noted that the survey submitted by Bornazo PC, in 2005, was amended in November 2008. Ms. Fredman noted that the survey said the street name was corrected. Mr. Berk noted that this survey was done after the addition of the sports court, spa/patio and fence. Ms. Fredman questioned if the addition was done at the same time as the sports court. Mr. Berk stated that it was done before that and they have a CO. Mr. Moscato noted that he was just trying to get a timeline of the events and when the survey was changed to reflect that. He further stated that there are some significant concerns in terms of process in a sense that a building permit to do a project of this size requires hoops that have to be traversed not the least of which is storm water management and a concern for putting this much impervious surfaces in place though it does not exceed your allowable limit for impervious surfaces because your lot is so large, it does raise storm water management issues. So therefore the hoops that normally would be followed going to the Planning Board and having them review the plan looking at the engineering studies looking at the water courses and the buffer areas, all that stuff would have normally been done. So that had this application come before us today, new, I'm fairly confident it would be turned down on the spot because of the enormity of the request and the location so that it never would have passed the planning process that the Village has in place. He asked when was the sports court built. Mr. Berk said while he doesn't have the exact date, it was about 4 or 5 years ago. The spot where the sport court was built had a swing set. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Nowak what the Village policy was as to land fill and re-grading. Mr. Nowak noted that the Village policy is that a permit is required for changing grade over 400 square feet 3 inches or greater in height or changing the grade within 10 feet of a side or rear yard. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 13 Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Berk what was done in terms of re-grading of that site. Mr. Berk stated that his lot, his front property is very long and the back is much shorter and there is a relatively steep slope in the back. He said that where the sport court went there really was no re-grading. The property up to that point is fairly flat and then it kind of slopes down. Mr. Crescenzi asked what the court surface was. Mr. Berk replied that a company called Sport Courts came and did it and it is not really rubber or plastic but there is impervious surface under that and that it lays on top of it. Mr. Moscato asked if the company thought of getting a permit. Mr. Berk replied that he asked them if he needed to get a permit and they said no they don't think you do and so we proceeded. Ms. Fredman asked if the people who installed this was the vendor. Mr. Berk replied that it is a company called Sport Courts. Ms. Fredman clarified that Sport Courts sells you the material and installs it to which Mr. Berk stated yes. Ms. Fredman asked if the company wrote to the Berks and said that they didn't need a permit. Mr. Berk responded that he didn't believe they put it in writing. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Izzo in terms of the spa being on the patio if there were issues with respect to that. The spa is not a swimming pool as defined by the code, so the 15' setback to the water's edge doesn't apply. The reason the spa is in question is because it is sitting on a patio which is too close to the side yard setback. Mr. Moscato noted that the prevailing question is one with respect the water issues. Mr. Moscato said that he was looking at the basketball pole, the sports court of 42 x 35 feet or 1470 square feet. The back of the pole to the end of your property your line is two inches and I estimate that that is about 40 feet per inch, so it appears to be 80 feet from the back of the hoop to the end of the property line. Mr. Berk said that yes it was probably between 80 and 100 feet. Mr. Rednick asked if that was where the new retention basin going to be behind your property. Mr. Berk replied no. Mr. Rednick asked where it was going to be. Mr. Berk showed the Board on a map where it would be in relation to his house. Mr. Moscato said that his question pertained to any wetland buffer issue, that is nowhere to be found yet if you went before the Planning Board they would ask for topographies, they would ask where the buffer is, where the buffer ends and all of that would be vetted in that environment. You heard us discuss water retention issues in the previous application, and they are very sore points. Mr. Berk replied that he was totally sensitive to that. All I can tell you is that my property is fairly high compared to some of my neighbors like the Terranova's who live next door to me and I have spoken to all my neighbors and am happy to get letters. Specifically from Terranova who would be most affected he has never had any issues and he has a pool. I am up way high and way back into his back yard where this structure is. It is nowhere near his house. They did grade this thing so the water does go out the back. At the way back of my property is the brook which comes all the way down and is part of this whole water plan and comes all the way through my yard. I would say 100 to 120 Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 14 feet behind where that pole exists. My property ends at an old stone wall and there is another ten to fifteen feet to the embankment of the brook. Mr. Moscato noted that we don't have specific information. The question would be the degree to which the exact difference between where your property ends, where the sports court is, where any wetland buffers are, all of that is information that should be available in terms of remediation issues. Mr. Berk asked if the question was if he was in a wetlands. Mr. Moscato replied no, the question is that you built a sports court and it would have been vetted properly through the planning process and we don't have any of that information. Mr. Berk said he totally understood that but he is not in any wetlands. Mr. Izzo noted that the surveyor may not know what is considered wetlands by code. The question is how far from your real property is this brook and it should be represented on this survey because that is the only way for us to know if you are in a wetlands as described by the Village codes. I think what the Chairman is trying to get at is where the brook is, how far is it from your property because that will tell us. Mr. Moscato stated he was trying to ascertain officially what that distance is and whether or not we have an issue with respect to the size of the court and the proximity to wetlands. Mr. Berk stated that if that is something the Board is requesting then he is happy to comply. Mr. Crescenzi stated that they had talked earlier about whether there was any re-grading done or soil moved around. Did the company give you a proposal because generally in a proposal they will tell you what they are going to excavate, install, compact, generally they tell you what they are going to do and would you have a copy of that. Mr. Berk said he thinks they do have something and he would be happy to share it with the Board. Mr. Crescenzi replied thank you. Mr. Moscato said the other question the Board must have in mind is that your property is 110' feet wide so it is longer than wide so your house is set back 184 feet and 177 feet because it is slightly tilted from the street. The question is if you have a 110' foot lot why go right up to your neighbor's property line. It defies logic in a sense, it is 6". Mr. Berk said the only thing he can say is that is where the flattest part of the property was and that is simply the reason. There is a fence already existing there from Mr. Terranova because he has a pool but anyway that court is way beyond, it is where his pool is in back, you can't see it, it is not visibly impacting his property. It was sited where it was because that is the flattest part of the property without having to re-grade. Ms. Fredman commented that when she drove by there she thought she saw a very large retaining wall when you are facing your property on the left side. Mr. Berk said the retaining wall was in the front yard of the Terranova property. Ms Fredman asked if it Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 15 extended into Mr. Berks property to which he replied no. Ms. Fredman then asked what was between the Berks property and the neighbors in the area of the sport court. Mr. Berk said that it was rock and five feet of property and then goes down to where Mr. Terranova's pool is. Mr. Moscato said pictures would be very helpful. Ms. Fredman said you put something right on the property line and didn't put any screening and Mr. Berk replied that there was natural screening. That on that slope there are trees. Ms. Fredman clarified that it was Mr. Terranova's slope to which Mr. Berk replied absolutely. Mr. Moscato said that explains why you went 41/2 inches away from the property line but it still is an unacceptable location even after explanation so I'm going to ask Mr. Nowak if I were to come before the Village today for a 1400 square foot sports court what would I have to do in terms of drainage, to address the drainage in terms of surrounding area. Mr. Nowak replied that what would happen in this case is that the sport court would be designed in a way so that it was pitched towards a trench drain and there would be drywells installed as well. The systems of drywells would be actually designed for 25 year storm or 5.7 inches of rainfall so that could range from a number of installations where the applicant could use either a recharging system or they would use a drywell system. This would have to be engineered by a professional engineer. However, the spacing between the sports court currently and the property line would not allow that to happen on that side and currently as the sports court is built there is no real way of capturing that runoff with the exception of doing a trench drain or a curtain that drains all the way around. That would have to be addressed as well because the actual pitch of the sports court is not identified and is not angled in a way to promote the water to sheet flow into an inlet. Mr. Moscato said so that length on the side of lot 32 is 35' long, in other words the sports court is 42 feet by 35 feet and the 35 feet is the one that runs parallel to the neighbor's property. So you would have to put some kind of remediation on that side and it's impossible to do within a 4 1/2 inch distance. Mr. Nowak noted that the code for storm water would allow him to capture storm water, however there are many different ways of capturing storm water as such, and based on the applicant's engineer they can do a number of things. However, 41/2 inches is not nearly enough room to install a storm water system on that side. Mr. Moscato noted that the variance requested is almost 6 feet, 5.96 feet, so that cannot be re-engineered in the existing thing assuming we were allowing that to stay, but if that sports court were reduced the need for the variance is not necessary. The need for the variance results from the protrusion of the sports court onto the setback area so that if you were going to dig for the drain, dig for any kind of a drain you might as well just dig and eliminate the variance entirely. There is an issue then with the need to go that far into the variance area. The other major issue is the 10 foot chain link fence, 4 feet over village code. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 16 Mr. Berk stated that it matches the fence the Terranova's have which is four feet high. His fence is that high to prevent basketballs from going over the fence. Mr. Moscato stated that if this went to the Planning Board they would have sent it to them as exceeding the 6 foot limit so that if you have a basketball court that is 42 feet wide a ten foot fence is a high margin of error that far away from the hoop itself. The argument then is why on earth we put a ten foot fence there exceeding the standard of six feet. The other issue is the side yard setback for the spa/patio. You are dealing with the three variances and I'd like to get some sense from the Board as to the direction they would like to see this application go. Ms. Fredman noted that she didn't have much problem with the spa, "I think we could get past the spa but I am seriously troubled by the sports court, and at the planning level there was another application in your area and this fellow tried his hardest to fit a sports court into his property legally but he couldn't do it so he didn't get it and you just built it so I am going to have a very hard time leaving the sports court the way it is and approving it." Mr. Moscato said the issue of the fence becomes moot because if you modify the sports court surface the fence also needs to be moved and the question is are you satisfied with a ten foot fence. Ms. Fredman asked Mr. Berk if the fence was ten feet from his level or from the bottom of the rocks. Mr. Berk said that it was on his side of the property line. Mr. Moscato asked if the company indicated whether they had ever built in Rye Brook before. He answered no. The Board all agreed that they would like more information before they render a decision. We will adjourn this to our September meeting and speak to the Building Department to see in terms of what they expect from an engineer so we have that additional information for the next meeting. Mr. Berk asked when that date was and was told September 1. Mr. Berk asked to be adjourned to the October meeting. The Board agreed. Ms. Reinke advised the applicant that he must update his sign with the October meeting date and he must submit the affidavit stating that you did post the sign seven days in advance of the October meeting, but the certified mailings do not have to go out again. Mr. Moscato noted the Boards concern with proximity to the adjacent property so the applicant should come forth with a plan to address that and secondly the height of the fence. Mr. Izzo made the Board aware that if the sports court was found to be in wetlands, the code gives a cutoff point for when residential properties need a wetlands permit and that cut off point in this particular case would be whether it's over 10 cubic yards of earth was affected and 10 cubic yards is the cutoff in the code book for the difference between an administrative permit issued by the Village Engineer or a full wetlands permit issued by the Planning Board. If this sport court was modified in height to a degree of 2 1/2 inches or more then it is over 10 cubic yards it is 14 cubic yards at 2 1/2 inches so it would Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 17 require a full wetlands permit by the Planning Board in which case it would not be before the Zoning Board, he would have to go directly to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board would have to refer it to the Zoning Board for variances. We would have to determine how much fill was brought in, how much re-grading was done, was more than 10 cubic yards involved, this will all have to be determined by information provided by the applicant and a topography survey and make an in-house determination because we don't have a topography for what existed before all we have is what exists now. Mr. Berk asks about his prior approval of a 2002 building permit for an addition, was a wetlands determination done then. Mr. Izzo noted that the addition was 140' from the rear property line and he didn't know what reviews Mr. Gerety did at that time. There are no notes that pertain to that in the file. Mr. Moscato asked Ms. Reinke if he needs to ask for public comments if the application is adjourned until the October meeting. Ms. Reinke said that it was still a public hearing. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. Mr. Dean Santon of 39 Hillandale Road addressed the Board as a resident. He stated that he was concerned about the procedure and the process here. Mr. Santon referenced the Nadasi application which went through a lengthy process. He also refers to the wetlands code on a case by case basis. Mr. Santon is confused on the timeline of the survey, when the applicant stated the work was done four to five years ago and the survey is dated 2005. That survey does not show the sports court on it. He would like the applicant to clarify if any fill was brought into the site for this project, because from my understanding there was fill brought in from a neighboring project to this site. Mr. Santon noted that he doesn't know how this Board can make judgement on setbacks and talking about things of a planning nature without any topography information, no clue how this court pitches or the grading around this court. The Terranova property is on the market and Mr. Santon doesn't believe that it is a big concern to that owner. On the Berks property going towards Ridge Manor Park and the wetlands does apparently drop off. Mr. Santon doesn't believe the Board can make an informed judgement about drainage and so forth. It might be more than just the side facing Terranova that needs some sort of capture of the water. It might be all around the entire surface of that sport court. Mr. Santon is troubled in terms of consistency, we have a process, and we have things that beyond the wetland watercourse definition that triggers site plan review, grading that triggers site plan review. There are rules and regulations about whether you can bring fill in to you property. I am concerned how the applicant has the complete right to be here and seek variances, but I don't know how your Board is going to make informed judgements without the Planning Board participating in this process. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 18 Mr. Crescenzi asked Mr. Santon what information would the Planning Board possesses that would be different from what they have in front of them now. Mr. Santon noted that if it was before the Planning Board applicant would be required to submit a topographical survey. The only document he has located is a survey that has the sport court hand written in with no dimensions. There isn't any setback noted from the sport court to the rear property line. Mr. Crescenzi noted that the following information discussed earlier was requested of the applicant, the dimensions of the sports court, the stream location and fill information. The applicant has a right to be here. If in house determines that a full wetlands review is required then it will go to the Planning Board. Mr. Santon noted that he has aerial photos of the property that show there were trees removed in order to build the sports court. At this point Mr. Berk and Mr. Santon engaged in cross conversation. The Chairman advised Mr. Santon to refrain from cross conversation and to address the Board. Mr. Santon is disturbed that other applicants have gone through a very unpleasant experience to try to get a sport court approved for their property, this project just gets built, and to come after the fact and ask for all these variances. These variance are not demonstrated to be necessary, the court could be cut and have surface removed and the fence can be adjusted to 6 feet to be compliant. All the variances issues can go away within the applicant's control. How do we deal with the fact that there was grading done to what is now being talked about as a 1470 square foot surface, that alone could trigger site plan review. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the October 6, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Berk agreed to the adjournment. Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 19 9) Approval of July 7, 2009 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato noted that he made minor grammatical change to the July 7, 2009 summary. The consensus of the Board was to hold over the July 7, 2009 summary until the September 1, 2009 meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2009 Page 20